VoltStar v. Samsung Electronics America: Four-Patent Charger Dispute Dismissed
VoltStar Technologies filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas targeting Samsung’s 25W Super Fast Wall Charger and Super Fast Wireless Charger across four patents. The case was jointly dismissed after 213 days, before any substantive ruling on the merits.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 213 days
213 days — resolved before claim construction in E.D. Texas
Joint dismissal under Rule 41: what the resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): joint stipulation dismissal
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation signed by all parties. Here the parties filed a Joint Motion and the court granted it. This procedural route is commonly used to formalise a negotiated resolution. Because the order states only that the case is ‘DISMISSED’ without specifying prejudice, the precise terms remain undisclosed.
Procedural dismissal — no merits rulingWith or without prejudice? The record is silent
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ bars VoltStar from re-filing the same claims against Samsung. A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ would preserve that right. The court’s order does not specify, and the public docket does not disclose settlement terms. Practitioners should treat the enforceability status of the four asserted patents as unresolved from this case alone — no claim was invalidated or adjudicated.
Prejudice status: undisclosedVoltStar exits without a merits win — or loss
VoltStar obtained no public judgment confirming infringement or damages. However, the joint nature of the dismissal — and the early stage at which it occurred — is consistent with either a negotiated licence, a lump-sum payment, or a decision to drop the action. The four patents-in-suit remain in force and could potentially be asserted against other defendants.
Patents remain enforceableSamsung avoids a merits ruling on its charging products
Samsung’s 25W Super Fast Wall Charger and Super Fast Wireless Charger face no court finding of infringement. No claim construction narrowed or validated VoltStar’s patent scope against Samsung’s products. The absence of an invalidity ruling also means Samsung did not achieve the patent clearance that an inter partes review or trial verdict might have provided.
No invalidity finding securedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VoltStar Technologies, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc, | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joel Benjamin Rothman | Attorney | Counsel for VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Dunne | Attorney | Counsel for VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Layla Nguyen | Attorney | Counsel for VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sangheon Han | Attorney | Counsel for VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sriplaw PA | Law Firm | Representing VoltStar Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics America, Inc,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics America, Inc,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L. Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants the parties’ joint motion and states simply that ‘this case is DISMISSED.’ The absence of a prejudice qualifier and the lack of any findings of fact or conclusions of law means neither party secured a substantive ruling. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals of this type typically reflect either a private settlement or a strategic withdrawal, but the public record does not confirm which. The four asserted patents emerge from this litigation without any judicial determination as to validity or infringement scope.
US7910833B2 — fast-charging power conversion and delivery technology
The four patents-in-suit — US7910833B2, US9024581B2, US7960648B2, and USRE048794E — originate from application filings in the late 2000s, placing their priority dates in the foundational era of smartphone charging standardisation. The inclusion of a reissue patent (USRE048794E) indicates that VoltStar or a predecessor deliberately sought broader claim coverage after initial grant, a common strategy to capture commercially significant product implementations that post-date original prosecution.
Collectively, these patents cover the wired fast-charging and wireless charging technology space directly relevant to Samsung’s high-wattage consumer charger products. In a market where fast-charging differentiation is a primary consumer purchasing driver, patents governing power conversion efficiency and wireless charging protocols carry significant licensing and enforcement value. The assertion against Samsung — a global leader in Android device charging ecosystems — suggests VoltStar views these patents as commercially material against major OEM defendants.
Should your team run an FTO against US7910833B2 and the VoltStar portfolio?
Any company designing, importing, or distributing fast-charging wall chargers or wireless charging pads for consumer electronics in the US market should treat this four-patent portfolio as an active enforcement risk. The joint dismissal does not neutralise the patents — they remain in force and VoltStar has demonstrated willingness to assert them in E.D. Texas against a top-tier defendant. Power electronics engineers and product managers working on USB-PD, PPS, or proprietary fast-charge protocols should include these patents in pre-launch FTO reviews.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s charging circuitry and power delivery architecture against the claim language of all four asserted patents simultaneously. Eureka identifies claim elements, prosecution history disclaimers, and prior art that may support design-around options or validity challenges — helping your IP and engineering teams make informed go/no-go decisions before product launch or market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7910833B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar fast-charging patent cases in E.D. Texas and related courts
Explore patent infringement actions asserting fast-charging and wireless power delivery patents in the Eastern District of Texas against consumer electronics OEMs.
What this case signals for the fast-charging IP landscape
Four charging patents, two Samsung SKUs, and a swift joint dismissal — the pattern carries clear signals for IP strategists in the power electronics sector.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for charging technology assertions
VoltStar’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with the court’s plaintiff-friendly reputation and Judge Mazzant’s active patent docket. Companies selling fast-charging products in the US market should monitor new filings in this district against comparable defendants.
Multi-patent bundles raise licensing negotiation leverage significantly
Asserting four patents across both wired and wireless charging creates a broader negotiation surface for the plaintiff. Defendants facing multi-patent infringement actions in this technology space should conduct parallel prior art searches across all asserted patents early to identify the strongest invalidity arguments before any claim construction hearing.
VoltStar v Samsung — key questions answered
VoltStar Technologies filed a patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics America in the Eastern District of Texas on July 23, 2024, asserting four patents covering fast-charging and wireless charging technology against Samsung’s 25W Super Fast Wall Charger and Super Fast Wireless Charger. The parties filed a joint motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which the court granted on February 21, 2025. No merits ruling was issued.
VoltStar asserted four patents: US7910833B2, US9024581B2, US7960648B2, and reissue patent USRE048794E. These patents cover fast-charging power conversion and wireless charging technology. Their application filings date to the late 2000s, and the reissue patent reflects a post-grant broadening of claim scope.
The dismissal carries no implication for patent validity. No claim was adjudicated, no invalidity finding was made, and no claim construction was issued. All four patents remain in force. Future defendants cannot rely on this dismissal as a defence — each would need to conduct independent invalidity or non-infringement analysis.
The court’s order does not specify. The docket records only that the case is ‘DISMISSED’ following a joint motion under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The public record is silent on whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and no settlement terms have been disclosed. This distinction is material to VoltStar’s ability to refile equivalent claims against Samsung.
Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas presided. VoltStar was represented by Sriplaw PA, with attorneys Joel Benjamin Rothman, Joseph Dunne, Layla Nguyen, and Sangheon Han. Samsung was represented by Gillam & Smith LLP, with Melissa Richards Smith as lead counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.